[tied] Re: Bader's article on *-os(y)o

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, enlil@... wrote:

> Richard:
> > There might be some counter-examples from Latin. 2s. _fers_ of
> > Latin _fero_ 'carry' and 2s. _vi:s_ of Latin _volo:_ 'wish' come
> > to mind. Is there any Szeremenyi lengthening in the 2s to argue
> > against it?
>
> But Latin alone isn't IE. The whole point of the

phrase "comparative

> data" is that we compare the data with _something else_.

The problem is that there isn't a great deal of evidence at _my_
disposal. The present stem of all the Greek athematic verbs I can
think of ends in a vowel (not -l/n/r) and I don't understand the 2s
imperfect of Greek eîmi 'go'.

For Sanskrit, the regular 2s imperfect active of athematic stems
ending in a constant has a strong form of the stem (gun.ated, not
vr.ddhied) and either zero ending (because Sanskrit words cannot end
in two consonants) or -i:s. However, _I_ don't know whether the 2s
imperfect, is ever vr.ddhied for athematic stems ending in
consonants.

I know virtually no Hittite, and I do not know that any other
languages can shed any light on the issue. I was hoping soneone
more knowledgeable would provide the evidence if I started the ball
rolling.

>
>
> Richard:
> > If it is an allophone,[...]
>
> Oh here we go...
>
>
> >[...] there is a phonemic contrast between thematic *e and

thematic

> >*o,
>
> Non sequitur. The phonemic status of these vowels has no bearing
> on the issue of *s and *z. At one time they were the same vowel as
> proven by examples such as *to-s/*te-syo. At some point the common
> vowel *& split in pronunciation based on the presence or absence of
> voicing in the consonant that followed (ie: Schwa Diffusion, via
> lengthening before voiced segments as in English). Then the

contrast

> became phonemic (ie: Schwa Merger, through the merger of *& and &.
> to *e and *a respectively). Then *a became *o by Vowel Shift.

(Largely irrelevant VCCV example deleted.)

> > If we have a phonemic contrast **s ~ **z, then we can assume a

single

> > thematic vowel, say *&.
>
> No, that's nuts. We can have *& without having a phonemic contrast.
> A new phoneme is unnecessary assumption. Look at the above again.
> Think about it, don't just glance it and dismiss. Have a coffee,
> think for ten minutes on it if you have to.
>
>
> > What is wrong with this logic?
>
> Everything.

You are libelling me again. Logic is not invalid because the
premiss is false; false premisses simply result in unproven
conclusions.

> > I do not see how we are going to get 2s. *-es v. nom. s. *-os out
> > of one vowel and one consonant until the vowel or the consonant

has

> > split into two phonemes.
>
> No, I told you. The 2ps *-es is by analogy with *-esi.

I presume that means we don't get the contrast out of one vowel and
one consonant. You appear to be saying that the 2s in *-es was
refashioned after the length distinction in the thematic vowel
ceased to be allophonic. The only real justification then for not
saying that **-/os/ (equivalent to **-/as/) was replaced by *-es is
that thematic *o and some non-thematic *o were distinct in PIE -
Brugmann's law does not apply to thematic vowels.

Should I counsel you to get some rest and keep taking the pills?

> > To me it seems entirely plausible that the Nostratic contrast *t

~ *s

> > became, in final position, **s ~ **z.
>
> Then you're really far gone because Nostratic would have been

spoken

> c.15,000 BCE for god's sake.

Nostratic *t ~*s > PIE **s ~**z in PIE final position. (I presume
you think I meant Nostratic **s ~**z).

Richard.